Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

That Golodnikov bit is worth its characters in gold

 

Enough times I paid the price for trusting performance over tactical realities, and also scored some victories because of that.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

That Golodnikov bit is worth its characters in gold

 

Enough times I paid the price for trusting performance over tactical realities, and also scored some victories because of that.

 

 

Totally agree.

I once also wrote here that we should not focus so much on "paper stats", but about the "hidden datas" a single fighter had back then, that may be or may be not (Probably not so easy to do) present in our sims and/or games.

 

[Dakpilot]

.......snip.....

 

So basically,if someone would have said 2 weeks ago, that the flaps of certain Russian fighters are not behaving correctly in aerodynamical terms, without providing an aeronautical engineering dissertation, he would have been banned? For speaking the truth in General Forum, you get a ban? Or are we having double standards now? I like the direction this forum is going...

 

 

 

No if you read rule 18 the exception is to discuss FM's in the FM section regardless of aeronautical engineering dissertation, however this is not the FM section so you just broke rule 18   no double standards the rule has been that for ages, in fact, if you really don't want double standards you should accept a self imposed  ban   

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited February 28, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

however this is not the FM section so you just broke rule 18 

That's a lie. I didn't brake the rule. I followed the points BlackSix was talking about (rule 18), even gave them numbers to make it more clear 

Edited February 28, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

Dakpilot:

thanks for the iterview with N. Golodnikov - really puts things in different perspective. I would moreover add that there are many other factors, which influence combat speed - even two aircraft of the same type and series can be quite different in performance, the same goes for engines and it is also influenced by maintenance, components age, quality of fluids, etc. Pilots didn't abuse their aircraft and used emergency modes of operation really only in emergency, because you depended on the technical condition of your aircraft with your life. This is not the case in the sim, we don't care for our virtual lives, nor aircraft, therefore we are often battling maximum numbers, maximum Gs, maximum engine power outputs, maximum climb rates, maximum turn rates and so on... 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I try to abide to that as often as I can, and once you get the hang of it it's extremely rewarding. In the LaGG-3 I usually cruise at 2000RPM and 60-80% throttle, climb at 2200-2600RPM and combat at 2600RPM unless things get really, really hairy. Only then I firewall the engine and pray, but else reduced settings work like a charm and they allow one to close the rads quite a bit, which is a blessing for speed.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[HagarTheHorrible]

Thanks for the Golodnikov interview. It sums up my idea of what I think is wrong with the 190 quiet succinctly and why it doesn't seem, to me, qualitatively different from the 109, or indeed anything else. Top speed is less important than combat speed/ responsiveness. I think it was in a report by Winkle that talked about the 190's ability to accelerate away from a Spitfire (presumably Vb), that says much about why the RAF were troubled by it.

[Art]

Hey BlackSix can you explain why you ban him ?  I do not see any insult ... 

[URUAker]

I remember another soviet pilot who flew La5 and Yaks among other that said that the Yak was the better dogfighter, and the La5 a better war machine because it was so rugged.

[Feathered_IV]

Hey BlackSix can you explain why you ban him ? I do not see any insult ...

I did. Perhaps it is deleted now. At any rate, let it go.

[kendo]

Great post there Dakpilot. It's always fascinating to read about something that you thought was totally self-evident and obvious and then realise that the real situation was much more nuanced.  And usually they are insights from experienced pilots - Eric Brown was another recent example.
 
One other thing, and I hesitate to post this for obvious reasons, but II./JG77_Manu your error rate calculation is wrong, though not to a degree that changes the outcome to any great extent (ie it's still way beyond the dev's stated 5% target).
 

...

1. Fw190 Climb Rate 15,8% worse then it should be at 6000m.
2.should be 11m/s at 1.32ata and 2400rpm according to this Graphs


-->1,5m/s to bad, =15,8% to bad, = way more then your self-imposed allowed 5% error (or was it 2%, i forgot) --> faulty FM

The actual % error as it is properly defined is 13.6% and is calculated as difference in the two values / correct value and expressed as a percentage ((11-9.5)/11) *100

 

Really not trying to be nit-picking but since the numbers were published and people can now calculate whether the data is within the dev's stated 5% target it's better that we're using a like for like comparison.

Edited February 29, 2016 by kendo

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I was so happy we got given some official numbers that I got to work and calculated a crap load of data about lift slopes, induced drag, estimates on form drag and limited engine data. After reading this thread I just cant bring myself to post it in fear of fueling more crap. I hate the internet sometimes. We have a great tool here and it just ends up buthurting lol

Edited February 29, 2016 by AeroACE

[MK_Turbo12]

I am one of those who remember the old Il-2, 15 years ago, and endless debate for about how planes should fly. Especially the early years of the war, when was the technological superiority of German planes indisputable. We proofed it by hundreds of tables, that we searched all possible archives. Sometimes it even for a moment succeeded, I remember a time when the A5 was faster than La-5FN at ground level . So lovely times . Then it was "repaired". The reason is simple. The German planes were flying ever experienced pilots who were able to quickly take advantage of the slightest advantage. A mass of Russian children, who could not understand how it is possible, complained until it was “corrected”. Maybe it helped nationalism of developers who were often truly believe that the Russian aircraft were not even great, but the best in the world. Therefore, the Lada is synonymous with great, powerful cars for years and BMW nobody wants, because of 70 years of Russian technology advantage.

As you can see, for 15 years nothing has changed, nor methods - banning harmful ideas, nor the results. German planes in Il-2 "anything" will never fly, how they have, deal with it.

Be aware that IL-2 is not a simulator, it's a game. A game where some toys coincidentally the same name as in reality, but are not working. And never will be.

The reason is simple, the players are not prepared for the losses suffered by the Russians during the war. It is not possible to play 1:10, so it is necessary to compensate for this by adjusting the parameters. Sides in this game must be balanced. FW will always be a few km slower and LA always a few km faster. Yaks wings don’t brake during the dive and don’t lose energy in turns. So it was and forever will be.

Believe me.
MK_Turbo

 

Forum rule #17, 18, 20 violating.
A complete ban on access.

Edited February 29, 2016 by BlackSix

[BraveSirRobin]

Ze Hairy, like the rest of us here, is what's commonly know as a 'paying customer'.  

 

Sorry, but no.  You still have to treat people with respect if you want them to treat you with respect.  

[-TBC-AeroAce]

This is one of the most important posts and people are just careing about a single persons disputes L

Edited February 29, 2016 by AeroACE

[216th_Jordan]

I am one of those who remember the old Il-2, 15 years ago, and endless debate for about how planes should fly. Especially the early years of the war, when was the technological superiority of German planes indisputable. We proofed it by hundreds of tables, that we searched all possible archives. Sometimes it even for a moment succeeded, I remember a time when the A5 was faster than La-5FN at ground level . So lovely times . Then it was "repaired". The reason is simple. The German planes were flying ever experienced pilots who were able to quickly take advantage of the slightest advantage. A mass of Russian children, who could not understand how it is possible, complained until it was “corrected”. Maybe it helped nationalism of developers who were often truly believe that the Russian aircraft were not even great, but the best in the world. Therefore, the Lada is synonymous with great, powerful cars for years and BMW nobody wants, because of 70 years of Russian technology advantage.

As you can see, for 15 years nothing has changed, nor methods - banning harmful ideas, nor the results. German planes in Il-2 "anything" will never fly, how they have, deal with it.

Be aware that IL-2 is not a simulator, it's a game. A game where some toys coincidentally the same name as in reality, but are not working. And never will be.

The reason is simple, the players are not prepared for the losses suffered by the Russians during the war. It is not possible to play 1:10, so it is necessary to compensate for this by adjusting the parameters. Sides in this game must be balanced. FW will always be a few km slower and LA always a few km faster. Yaks wings don’t brake during the dive and don’t lose energy in turns. So it was and forever will be.

Believe me.

MK_Turbo

 

This is nonsense. There is nothing to 'believe' here. Good pilots are good pilots mostly not because of the planes they fly but the tactics they and their group uses, add proper radio communication to that. I'm pretty sure that performance really was not such an important thing back then as it is here in a simulator, so please don't use history for your argumentation.

 

Bye the way: could I lend me your Yak-1? because mine seems to suffer from great energy loss in turns, probably bad russian production quality.

[LukeFF]

Believe me.

 

What a load of bunk. Have you ever flown the 109 F-4 here? I'm sorry, but if you can't succeed in that plane, then you're just a terrible pilot. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by LukeFF

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The few times I take up the F-4 I play a game of leaving the engine at 50% and engaging. The result was always the same - engaging Soviet fighter from a comfortable height and speed advantage, getting away from them fast and effortlessly, and flying circles around them. The only thing that caught up with that was a flak shell so far.

[unreasonable]

Great post there Dakpilot. It's always fascinating to read about something that you thought was totally self-evident and obvious and then realise that the real situation was much more nuanced.  And usually they are insights from experienced pilots - Eric Brown was another recent example.

 

One other thing, and I hesitate to post this for obvious reasons, but II./JG77_Manu your error rate calculation is wrong, though not to a degree that changes the outcome to any great extent (ie it's still way beyond the dev's stated 5% target).

 

The actual % error as it is properly defined is 13.6% and is calculated as difference in the two values / correct value and expressed as a percentage ((11-9.5)/11) *100

 

Really not trying to be nit-picking but since the numbers were published and people can now calculate whether the data is within the dev's stated 5% target it's better that we're using a like for like comparison.

 

Taking the difference is the same as taking one number over the other.  11/9.5 = 1.158, -1 = 0.158 ie 15.8%.  11-9.5 = 1.5, 1.5/9.5 = 0.158.

 

What is crucial is deciding which number to take as the denominator(the number on the bottom) : 11, or 9.5. Obviously, you get a lower % difference taking a larger denominator.

 

In any percentage calculation it could be appropriate to use either number as the denominator - it depends on what you want to use as the yardstick, and it is always best to be absolutely clear in case of ambiguity.

 

In this case, the 5% range is +/- % acceptable error from the target number, so ideally the deviation from the target should also be measured using the target as the denominator, otherwise the percentages are not comparable. While we do not know the actual target number, (but the developers do) it obviously is not 11, which is just what the "haters" think it ought to be - if the current FM is correct then it is 9.5, or near enough (within 5%). So 11 is indeed 15.8% greater than the proxy for the target number and Manu is absolutely right.

 

edit: right in his calculated %, no opinion on the number itself - well actually I do, but not going to risk a banning

 

Taking 11 as the denominator would be appropriate if the question was "how much should a roll rate (oops, climb rate) of 11 be reduced to get to the target number?". Answer 1.5/11 or 1-(9.5/11)  = 13.6%

Edited February 29, 2016 by unreasonable

[SqwkHappy]

 

 

The capability of an engine to drive an airplane forward and brake it in the shortest space of time is called “responsiveness”.

 

..I think this one line is very important for everyone to understand.

[Han]

I am one of those who remember the old Il-2, 15 years ago, and endless debate for about how planes should fly. Especially the early years of the war, when was the technological superiority of German planes indisputable. We proofed it by hundreds of tables, that we searched all possible archives. Sometimes it even for a moment succeeded, I remember a time when the A5 was faster than La-5FN at ground level . So lovely times . Then it was "repaired". The reason is simple. The German planes were flying ever experienced pilots who were able to quickly take advantage of the slightest advantage. A mass of Russian children, who could not understand how it is possible, complained until it was “corrected”. Maybe it helped nationalism of developers who were often truly believe that the Russian aircraft were not even great, but the best in the world. Therefore, the Lada is synonymous with great, powerful cars for years and BMW nobody wants, because of 70 years of Russian technology advantage.

As you can see, for 15 years nothing has changed, nor methods - banning harmful ideas, nor the results. German planes in Il-2 "anything" will never fly, how they have, deal with it.

Be aware that IL-2 is not a simulator, it's a game. A game where some toys coincidentally the same name as in reality, but are not working. And never will be.

The reason is simple, the players are not prepared for the losses suffered by the Russians during the war. It is not possible to play 1:10, so it is necessary to compensate for this by adjusting the parameters. Sides in this game must be balanced. FW will always be a few km slower and LA always a few km faster. Yaks wings don’t brake during the dive and don’t lose energy in turns. So it was and forever will be.

Believe me.MK_Turbo

no any proofs for stating that FM is ballanced in compare to reality.

Lie on project objectives and product placement.

Lie on developers plans and actions.

 

No any single word of true regarding BoM/BoS in this post.

 

So... Moderators are noted - please stand by for a ban. I'm hope it will be permoment.

[303_Kwiatek]

How you explain that all russian planes got way optimistic performance in BOS/BOM which you couldnt find in any avaliable data? E.x. Yak1 lagg3 high alt performance, maximum speed of i16 or mig3 at low altitude where in german planes only F4 is overperformer at higher alts rest german planes is in range official data. Never saw single post about russian plane in bos is underperformer in any area. You surly know that serial russian planes from these peroid never got such optimistic performance and avaliable data even russian clearly confirm these.

 

And 5% error could make sometimes 10% difference between planes example give yak1 +5% better climb rate and take -5% from fwA3 and you got 10% differerence.

Edited February 29, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Han]

How you explain that all russian planes got way optimistic performance in BOS/BOM which you couldnt find in any avaliable data? E.x. Yak1 lagg3 high alt performance, maximum speed of i16 or mig3 at low altitude where in german planes only F4 is overperformer at higher alts rest german planes is in range official data. Never saw single post about russian plane in bos is underperformer in any area.

You cant find it - we can. Several months spent in archieves of Cental Museum of Defense Ministry where thousands of sheets of test reports of NII VVS (Air forces Research Institute) were copied.

 

So, you claiming on FM without any historical data support. Requesting for ban by item 18 of forum rules.

[303_Kwiatek]

Data and test many times was posted in a few topics in fm section in your forum. Pity that develepers dont too much attention about these. I think developers attitude here at least English section for your customers really is not likelly in many cases. pity that you dont follow attitude and profesionalism of dcs developers

 

Forum rule #8, 20 violating.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21249-developer-diary-part-123-discussion/page-5?do=findComment&comment=336780

Forum rule #18 violating.

 

Ban for 60 days

Edited February 29, 2016 by BlackSix

[Han]

Data and test many times was posted in a few topics in fm section in your forum. Pity that develepers dont too much attention about these. I think developers attitude here at least English section for your customers really is not likelly in many cases. pity that you dont follow attitude and profesionalism of dcs developers

Pity that my PM box have never received any proofs for "way to optimustic" russian planes.

I've stated many times that it's necessary to guarantie our attention.

 

Pitty that your negative attitude to our project never changes from RoF development times.

 

Pitty that this post is violating forum rules item #8 and #20.

 

You old-time hater of the project, I'm not surprised to see these false claims and bad attitude from you - I've seen same bad things from you many times before.

 

Moderators noted.

 

Pitty.

[303_Kwiatek]

Im not against simulator which as real life pilot i think is very good and got potential regarding flight physic aspect i told the same about rof. What is not likley to me is rather not too friendly or poor communicate devs attitude expecially in english forum here. Flight physic is one thing but historical performance is other story. I think you would more respect if you would follow dcs attitude.

 

And for your info i was first who post topic in fm section about yak1 wrong flaps cl/Cd ratio and too optimistic behaviour long time ago. As we see your team found these issue also looking for last update. Every could make mistakes but it depend of will if want to fix it or not

Edited February 29, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Han]

I think you would more respect if you would follow dcs attitude.

 

And for your info i was first who post topic in fm section about yak1 wrong flaps cl/Cd ratio

You weren't a guy who have performed strict tests on Yak Cl/Cd ratio and send it to my PM - it was another man. So there are no any your input to this change. Pitty.

 

DCS moderators will ban instantly for unsupported FM claims or for FM claims which are "not help" them. I know DCS 100 times more than you - I've work there for years before RoF. So you just violating rule #8 by mentioning DCS here and you dont tell truth if stating that they're more tolerant.

 

No any truth in you words. Pitty.

[303_Kwiatek]

My raport was here in these topic

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15470-yak-1-flaps-down-arcadish-behaviour/

 

I dont send any raport to you cause i got bad experience from past unfortunately. Good that there are other people who still have will to do it.

[Lusekofte]

Interesting data , I had no idea about the landing configuration of the PE 2, and it make sense ,at the same time it does not. I have tried all this time to land with 100% flaps about 60% of the time and it really give you a perfect landing pattern and speed right up to the stall and fail.

I was determined to land this bird historically and was not aware I was not, again many thanks for the info. 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

You weren't a guy who have performed strict tests on Yak Cl/Cd ratio and send it to my PM - it was another man. So there are no any your input to this change. Pitty.

 

DCS moderators will ban instantly for unsupported FM claims or for FM claims which are "not help" them. I know DCS 100 times more than you - I've work there for years before RoF. So you just violating rule #8 by mentioning DCS here and you dont tell truth if stating that they're more tolerant.

 

No any truth in you words. Pitty.

I can atest to this statement, they ban willy nilly over there for any negativity against their Game.

Interesting data , I had no idea about the landing configuration of the PE 2, and it make sense ,at the same time it does not. I have tried all this time to land with 100% flaps about 60% of the time and it really give you a perfect landing pattern and speed right up to the stall and fail.

I was determined to land this bird historically and was not aware I was not, again many thanks for the info. 

thats funny; I told people and did a video on the actual correct way to land the PE-2; but noooo, you hard core historical buffs thinks its wrong and won't change your ways. just because the flaps can go 100% doesn't mean they should be put out at 100%. just because it looks like a duck walks like a duck doesnt mean its a duck. respectfully     

Edited February 29, 2016 by 71st_Mastiff

[303_Kwiatek]

Never got ban there but here a few times i see Yo-Yo there frequently in discusion about flight model and performance of their planes very proffesional and likley attitude which i dont see here

Edited February 29, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Lusekofte]

 

thats funny; I told people and did a video on the actual correct way to land the PE-2; but noooo, you hard core historical buffs thinks its wrong and won't change your ways. just because the flaps can go 100% doesn't mean they should be put out at 100%. just because it looks like a duck walks like a duck doesnt mean its a duck. respectfully     

 

You are correct, I follow your tutorial 40% of the time and kangaroo jump the rest. I had this great illusion that if flaps went 100% they was to be used all the way . The reason I got as high as 40% in your way is DED server witch punish you for loosing a aircraft 

Edited February 29, 2016 by EG14_LuseKofte

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I can atest to this statement, they ban willy nilly over there for any negativity against their Game.

As a matter of fact they will ban you even for action outside of the forums. Any negative or "malicious" statement either on other forums or youtube according to their rules allows them to ban the user. Couple of more famous folks were treated like that last year. I got banned for a month for a harmless statement that their "Community Manager" disliked. He often browses other forums, including this one to carry his policies.

On the other hand I never saw Zak, Bearcat, Rama or anyone else from here doing so.

 

I dont think there is a need to refrain to banning users, nothing good comes of it. Problems should be discussed, we are all mature people.

 

 

 

i see Yo-Yo there frequently in discusion about flight model and performance of their planes very proffesional and likley attitude which i dont see here

 

You mean the professional way they release and sell unfinished product and then "fix" it for another year or two ? K-4 is WiP since 1.5 year. Ask Solty or Crump how they feel about it, while they will disagree to the facts how K-4 should perform, they certainly would agree that K-4 is unfinished. Thats by no means professional development. The only professional group out there is Leatherneck Simulations. 

 

 

Personally I'm less concerned with the numbers, than actual feeling of an aeroplane. The flight characteristics of the aircraft in BoS/BoM are superb. No developer will be 100% accurate with numbers because aircraft back then were not meeting those spec sheets in 100 % as well.  There is always some margin for a mistake. But if product has actual feeling and immersion, than that is something truly enjoyable. 

[LukeFF]

My raport was here in these topic

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15470-yak-1-flaps-down-arcadish-behaviour/

 

I dont send any raport to you cause i got bad experience from past unfortunately. Good that there are other people who still have will to do it.

 

I pity you if you think that's a report to be taken seriously. 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

yeep thats why Bluedrake42 stopped making DCS Videos...

[jaydee]

Good DD devs and thanks for all your work on  this Sim. It is improving month by month. Also thank you for your weekly updates about whats happening next. ~S~.

Also I am saddened by whats Happened to Hairy... I understand that Han may be Frustrated (maybe over worked). But I think the Last thing ANY of us should be doing is "Getting Rid" of Another Long time Simmer. We are getting smaller and smaller guys.

Han, I think this Ban is too Harsh. Maybe a strongly worded PM might have been a Better course of action.

Hairy, I believe you have good intentions and are passionate about BOS. And you have (obviously) have put a lot of time into research.... However, ALL the good work you do  Totally Diminished  when you add Sarcasm to an otherwise great post.

I hope this can be resolved for  Our (The Bos Community) sakes.

Blacksix, no more Ban hammer please.

Everyone stop and take a Break.

Look forward to BOM and beyond.

~S~ to all.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

no any proofs for stating that FM is ballanced in compare to reality.

Lie on project objectives and product placement.

Lie on developers plans and actions.

 

No any single word of true regarding BoM/BoS in this post.

 

So... Moderators are noted - please stand by for a ban. I'm hope it will be permoment.

 

La5 climb rate: between 5,7 and 6 minutes to 5000m according to all sources: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/la5.shtml, "Soviet Air Force Colours 1941 - 1945 by Erik Pilawskii", "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol. I by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov.", http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag-rus.htm

 

Yak1-s67 climb rate: 5,5 - 6.4 minutes to 5000m; sources: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak-rus.htm, "Russian graph 0213: The LaGG-3 and Yak-1 fighters with the Klimov M-105PF", http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/yak1.shtml, "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol. I by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov."

 

 

 

 

Fw190-A3 with combat rating climb rate: 5,5-5,7min to 5000m; sources: 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-a3-glctt-30july42.pdf

 

 

So if we take the optimistic values for the Russian fighters, and the 190, then all 3 of those aircraft should have a pretty similar climb rate.

Yet in game, there is a huge discrepancy between

Yak

Climb rate at sea level: 17 m/s

Climb rate at 3000 m: 15.3 m/s

La5

Climb rate at sea level: 18 m/s

Climb rate at 3000 m: 13.3 m/s

on one side, and

190

Climb rate at sea level: 15.9 m/s

Climb rate at 3000 m: 12.7 m/s

on the other side. Both Yak and La have 2 better ratings at both altitudes tested, both have one value which is clearly better then the 190s (La5 at 0m, Yak at 3000m).

Sorry Han, but that looks clearly like Russian fighters are getting benefited when compared to historic performance. Just to show you, where people's opinion, like for example Kwiatek's are coming from.

[Han]

Guys, i see that Moders have performed law and order restoring.

We don't like it. Realy. But MUTUAL respect should be kept.

 

Guys who come here to tell that "devs your work is a trash" will be never wellcome here. I'm think it's fair.

 

From other hand - we allways appericated guys who support us by different ways, including FM checks but without insulting. It's allways pleasure to calloborate with them. And we say a great Thanks to them.

 

PS

We will check Fw190 hi-alt climb rate comparing with sources - I see fact-supported reports here

But It's a luck that I see them. To have guarantie there should be a PM in my box with all materials and tests.

[Art]

I pity you if you think that's a report to be taken seriously. 

 I've never seen your test or your evidence that your statement is correct

Edited February 29, 2016 by Art

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

We will check Fw190 hi-alt climb rate comparing with sources - I see fact-supported reports here But It's a luck that I see them. To have guarantie there should be a PM in my box with all materials and tests.

Thanks Han.